'When it's time to kill, kill with a will' - we can all agree with that. Knowing when it's time to kill though is another thing entirely.

Though he was a proponent of what for brevity's sake I'll call 'Irish unification' Mosley remarked if Northern Ireland had to remain part of the UK, the British government should do what it took to destroy the IRA Colonel Kurtz-style and not fanny around trying to stymie them with infiltrators and limp semi-legal half-measures for decades, creating a trail of martyrs while appearing impotent and clueless, as we in fact did. Just as he opposed declaring war on Germany over the Danzig corridor but also any outcome that would lead Britain to lose its sovereignty or influence. Again, Britain and France went into that war with neither the means or willpower to win it cleanly, and so it was that we wound up a pathetic puppet of the USA with half of Europe under Stalin.

'Fighting to win' has no meaning when the fight is fundamentally unjustified, open-ended and pointless, as in this case. I don't doubt if the USA wanted to chuck out the rulebook and go all out to break Afghanistan they could, but where would that leave us? The point is we shouldn't be over there AT ALL.

What the hell is going in Afghanistan and Iraq then? I idea that has gained currency in the West that you can go to war with elements of a nation is ridiculous and ensures defeat. We did not fight "the kaiser" or "the Nazis" we fought Germany and won in both instances. Dresden, Berlin and Stuggarts civilian population were considered to be enemies even if they were communists, democrats etc (or even women and children). We can not take a census of peoples beliefs and attitudes before we open fire. A entire nations spirit must be broken in order to win a war, that is the very definition of victory. Anything else is a defeat.

.

I don't disagree,but the British Empire is a defunct organism.It bankrupted itself in it's misguided attack on the Third Reich.Okay Britain was on the winners side,but what the hell was gained?Britain[and the rest of the west]have nothing to gain by attacking Iran or anybody else in the middle east.

Quote:

Funny, the Boars have not given anyone any trouble for 110 years isn't it?

What trouble exactly was it that the Boers were giving to the Empire.I'm ignorant on this.Explain.

I don't disagree,but the British Empire is a defunct organism.It bankrupted itself in it's misguided attack on the Third Reich.Okay Britain was on the winners side,but what the hell was gained?Britain[and the rest of the west]have nothing to gain by attacking Iran or anybody else in the middle east.

The British Empire is history. However the West in general and the Anglo-Saxon parts of it in particular are still the leading civilization of the world. This is both a product and the cause of our immense wealth and privileged lifestyles. Should the West lose its supremacy this will change. The importance of Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq lies, obviously, in their natural resources and their potential to develop a threat to the West.

Quote:

What trouble exactly was it that the Boers were giving to the Empire.I'm ignorant on this.Explain.

They resisted. Empires and civilizations can not survive resistance or defeat.

They resisted. Empires and civilizations can not survive resistance or defeat.

An empire's greatest territorial extent doesn't necessarily coincide with its greatest strength or vitality. Realistically an empire based on a ruling class of a few hundred thousand elite Brits couldn't expand forever and in a context of mounting international rivalries fighting a war that shows you up as overconfident and crooked is counterproductive even if it's won.

In fact it's odd all round you should choose the Boer War as an example of how an empire should act. Though the Boers were 'pacified' they would quickly bounce back to form the dominant element in the Union that followed. And it was that war more than anything else before the Great War that tarnished the image of British invincibility and led people at home and abroad to question the nature of the empire.

They resisted. Empires and civilizations can not survive resistance or defeat.

Empires and civilizations cannot survive period.History proves absolutely that ALL empires and civilizations fall eventually.For example,the Athenian empires idiotic decision to invade Syracuse in the midst of their war with the Spartans was the one of the major deciding factors in their eventual downfall.So too will be any retarded invasion of Iran by the Yanks and their zionist masters.You see they will be drastically overextending themselves at a time when Russia and China are consolidating their power.

Quote:

However the West in general and the Anglo-Saxon parts of it in particular are still the leading civilization of the world. This is both a product and the cause of our immense wealth and privileged lifestyles. Should the West lose its supremacy this will change.

The power of our civilization consists in it's racial integrity and spiritual cohesion.Immense wealth and priviledged lifestyles lead to degeneracy.Are you so blind that you cannot see this?

Shame on you, Brummie, for allowing Barnes to use your identity on this site.

Well, Lee, most of the folks who post on here, probably, don't know you've been emailing me for quite some time now.

Rest easy, son, I'm never going to tell any tales told in private emails. Not unless you came good on the implied threats. If you were to do that, all bets would be off, of course.

Jack, I take it this is a rhetorical device. I am of course not Barnes, nor have had any contact with the guy

Quote:

Anyway, I thought I'd let you all check out a little something that I emailed to Lee a week or so ago. As you might imagine, he took absolutely no notice of it. He must have considered it just one of the motley little stories that make up the "motley collection of mutually contradicting conspiracy theories" that is the hidden history of the Jews.

Here goes:

Dennis Prager is a US radio talk show host and a syndicated journalist. He is also Jewish. On 11 March 2003, nine days before Iraq was invaded, Prager's opinion of George Bush was seen in a variety of media outlets. This is it:

"Let it be said before we know the outcome of the war in Iraq that America and the world are inordinately lucky to have George W. Bush as America's president. In fact, I would go further. To the extent that one is ever able to see the hand of God in history… I believe that either divine intervention or good luck on the magnitude of a lottery win explains George W. Bush's rise to the position of president…

George W. Bush believes in a God 'who is not neutral' between good and evil… George W. Bush believes that America has a God-given mission to be a light to the world and to spread liberty… George W. Bush would surely like the world to agree with him and to like him, but, thank God, he is prepared to go it alone and to be hated, a defining trait of a great leader…

George W. Bush is regularly described by American and foreign critics as a 'cowboy'. They are right, and for this, too, we should thank God… Many of us have far more moral confidence in the Lone Ranger than in Jacques Chirac or Kofi Annan.

The Lone Ranger rides again. Thank God he does."

Dennis Prager has never been to war.

On 25 March 2003, the most illuminating admission of intent and causative history that I have ever seen was featured in a Jewish Week article.

It was written by Jonathan Mark, the Associate Editor of Jewish Week, so nobody can pretend that what was said was the ravings of some religious loony that somehow got through the net.

THIS IS MAINSTREAM. This is what THEY really think. This is what THEY have been planning. This is what THEY have in store for us if we don't do something about it.

The opinions of the brute, messianic nutcases whose side Blair, Bush and the New World Order have always been on are catalogued here in a New York magazine that anyone can get from your average New York newsagent.

The following article was, appropriately titled, Apocolypse Now.

"The looming war with Iraq has long ago taken on the language of a religious crusade, in Arab capitals as well as the White House. But the Jewish messianic excitement that grew out of the first Gulf War back in 1991 is more muted now… And yet, deep into conversations, Orthodox Jews are saying an Iraq war might be of a piece with nothing less than the Messiah’s arrival.

In the 1990s, Americans began to speak of 'the end of history,' but are these the End of Days?

In 1991, even mainstream organizations like the Orthodox Union and Young Israel were caught up in the excitement, distributing an hour-long video to hundreds of North American synagogues for study sessions on how to see God’s fingerprints on everything….

That the first Gulf War ended on Purim (Feb. 28, 1991) made the whole thing seem like a mystical masquerade, a children’s holiday, with Americans and Israelis as unscathed as Esther. And now one of the deadlines for Iraq is said to be March 17, which happens to be Purim."

Do you get this?

The first Gulf War did not end on the Jewish festival of Purim by accident, some Jewish nut/nuts forced it to end then to accord with Biblical prophecy!

The second Gulf War was not being lined up to begin at the time of Purim because it was logistically the most favourable time to do so, it was scheduled thus because the Jewish prophecy-wallahs wanted it that way!

That's how much power your pals have, Lee! Enough power to SCHEDULE the terrible events that happen to the rest of us to fit in with their own f***ing calendar!

Do you really not get this?

History, dreadful genocidal history, is being created to fit in with some ancient Jewish code and, hey, if the pieces of our future's puzzle don't slot into place as snugly as they ought, there are people out there who are going to mallet them into place anyway!

The Jewish Week article continues:

"Rabbi Benjamin Blech, the Yeshiva University professor whose videotaped seminar on the End of Days was distributed by Young Israel and the OU, sees all the messianic elements of 1991 still in place, and the hand of God in the confluence of Purims.

Rabbi Blech, the author of The Idiot’s Guide to Judaism, points out that we’re already in the End of Days. According to the Talmud, human history will last no longer than 6,000 years 'and we’re already in 5763.' The six millennia correspond to the six days of the week. Just as Shabbat does not come at night but at twilight, some have calculated that the ‘Shabbat of the end,' the time for lighting Shabbat candles, so to speak, has already arrived — in 1967."

Do you get the symbolic attachment to the number 6 here?

6 working days of the week, 6,000 years and what else could there be? Oh, yes. How about 6 million dead Jews in the "Holocaust".

The article continues:

"We’re already in the endgame. Part of that will include a terrible time of catastrophe, which many see as the Holocaust, followed by a return of the Jews to Israel, followed by a return to Jerusalem, all of which has happened.

And remember,' said Rabbi Blech, 'the messianic story is rooted in a return to the Garden of Eden. That’s the ideal state. Kicked out, we strive to return. And the Garden of Eden is in Iraq,' situated near the Tigress and Euphrates rivers. 'We have the coincidence of time [Purim] and place [the Garden]'."

DO YOU GET THIS, STORMFRONT?

"We're already in 5763".

Therefore, according to the bonker brigade, we've got just 237 years left.

Ever wondered why the animals at the top of the tree aren't that bothered about global warming? However, before we get to Armageddon, why, the Jews are going to return to the Garden of Eden!

Which just happens be located in IRAQ! Which, according to Rabbi Blech, is "the ideal state" to whence, the Jews strive to return.

Do you really not get on whose behalf our lads are out there fighting and dying, Brummie? Do you really not get on whose behalf the committed Christians in Downing Street and the White House lied and lied and lied again?

The article continues:

"Even as he (Rabbi Pesach Lerner, executive director of the Young Israel synagogue movement ) was speaking to The Jewish Week on the phone, he said was holding a commentary by Rabbi Chananya Berzon for an upcoming Viewpoint, which states that Moshiach (the Messiah) 'will appear very soon. ... The world is sitting on a powder keg; at any moment it can frantically detonate, and we can fear cataclysmic events…

Before the Messiah comes, says Rabbi Shmuel Butman, director of Lubavitch Youth Organization, the nations of the entire world are supposed to be at odds".

Get it?

"Before the Messiah comes… the nations of the entire world are supposed to be at odds"!

Just as we almost are now!

The article continues:

"This war is clearly a continuation of the 1991 war, says Rabbi Butman, when the rebbe connected the messianic dots. He recalled the rebbe’s citation of the famous Baal HaTurim commentary that says Ishmael, Abraham’s son who is the prototype for Arabs and Islam, 'will fall in the End of Days'.

'Here, we see it is Ishmael. Esau — the president and the Christian right — support us and Ishmael is the culprit we’re going to break now'."

Hear that, Brummie?

Didn't you realise that it's YOU whom the Messianic Jew "USUALLY" thinks of as the ultimate enemy!

Did anybody bother to tell you?

"Usually" it's us, according to Rabbi Butman, who are the "ultimate enemy" but, whilst the President and the Christian right are supporting Jewish prophecy nuts like him, BINGO! Islam and the Arabs, are "the culprits"!

It's THEM, not US, whom the Messianic Jew is "going to break now"!

Does it not horrify you that Tony Blair is on the side of these guys?

Does it not horrify you that he prefers to be on their side rather than ours?

The article continues:

"In fact, no one has so openly cast this war in religious terms more than Esau.

It was President Bush’s repeated use of the word 'evil', with its biblical connotations, that has driven the debate out of the public square and into the pews. The president, who easily speaks of 'God’s plan,' refers often to the 'power of prayer,' of God’s hand guiding his own, of the 'spiritual shield that protects the country.'

Newsweek, in a recent cover story on 'Bush and God,' speaks of war 'in a land once called Babylon,' words lifted, it seems, from the mouths of Jewish messianists. The president proposes a wartime mission as messianic as Israel’s own — to bring God’s liberty to 'every human being in the world.'

Jewish religious conservatives aren’t nervous, they’re delighted. Radio talk show host, Dennis Prager, writing for Jewish World Review, an Orthodox online magazine, says, 'To the extent that one is ever able to see the hand of God in history… I believe that either divine intervention or good luck on the magnitude of a lottery win explains George W. Bush’s rise to the position of president.'

Bush is 'remarkable,' Rabbi Fund tells The Jewish Week, 'the ultimate Shabbos goy. He’s a goyish Menachem Begin, with God on his lips all the time. How can it be bad? He speaks of God more than Tommy Lapid,' leader of Shinui, 'that’s for sure. More than any Israeli leader, Bush is removing a Haman from the Jewish neck'."

That Bush and that Blair, nice to the Jews, aren't they?

Removing a Haman from around the neck of the Asiatic Jew, they are. Using white-European, Afro-Caribbean and Hispanic lads to do it. Just like a President and a Prime Minister did in Gulf War I. You know, the war that had "God's fingerprints" all over it.

It isn't white, European lads who have mostly died, of course. The Haman-like types, who happen to be living in a Garden of Eden that doesn't belong to them, are the ones who have mostly died.

No Israeli soldier has died in either Gulf War.

Esther, a Jewish girl, was chosen by the Persian king Ahasuerus as one of his many brides.

Haman, the king’s Prime Minister, was very suspicious of the Jews and he advised the king to massacre those who were living in his kingdom.

Esther got wind of Haman's plan and begged the king to have mercy on her people. When the king discovered that Haman's ire was principally directed at Mordechai, a Jew who had previously done the King good service, Haman was hanged upon the gallows that he had prepared for Mordechai.

Ahasueras, then, decided to give Mordechai and Esther permission to be revenged upon Haman's kinfolk and supporters.

As a result, according to the Bible, the Jews slaughtered almost 80,000 people throughout Ahasueras' Persian empire.

Most of these would have been innocent of any crime.

If, as most Biblical scholars seem to think, the Ahasueras of the Bible is the Xerxes of ancient history, Ahasueras wasn't served too well by these developments.

His military machine, which was vastly superior in men and equipment, was destroyed after he decided to take on the Greeks. Fourteen years after Salamis, (480 BC) and Plataea, (479 BC) having devoted himself for rather too long to what the historian, Herodotus, calls "the intrigues of the harem", a courtier stabbed him to death.

Anyway, the Jews celebrate their deliverance, the death of Haman and the slaughter of eighty thousand others who didn't like them much, to this day.

Rabbi Fund said that George Bush is "a goyish Menachem Begin."

In a speech before the Knesset that was reported in the 25 June 1982, edition of The New Statesman, Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel from 1977, described the Palestinians as "beasts walking on two legs."

Begin became the head of the Jewish terrorist organisation, Irgun, in 1943.

On 22 July, 1946, the Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem leaving 91 people dead. The HQ of the British Military was based in the King David Hotel and many British soldiers died.

Menachem Begin's Irgun also hanged two British Sergeants in 1947.

You wouldn't ever find a Tony Blair or a George Bush speaking ill of a .

You, probably wouldn't find a Brummie or a Barnes speaking ill of him either.

Jack, forgive the brevity of my response as compared to your post. I am taking a fair bit of flak for my views from several sources and therefore am a little pushed for time as I am sure you will appreciate.

You have at least the decency to explain your beliefs in some detail rather than insinuate dark theories and then react with scorn if they are not extrapolated in their entirety as is common on SF.

Would it be fair to summarize your position as suggesting that there is a group (fairly substantial) of ultra orthodox Jews attempting to manipulate the West into doing its bidding. Further that their goals are to enrich Jewry off the back of the gentiles and too bring about the end of the world in accordance with the prophecies of the Jewish scriptures?

The first point that suggests itself is that there exists a huge number of fundamentalist Christians, particularly in the US, who are openly working towards the latter goal. I understand that an enormous amount of cash has already been raised to reconstruct the Temple of Solomon (?) on the Temple Mount in order to fulfill some pre-condition specified in the Book of Revelations or some such. Of course anyone who is motivated by this stuff Jewish or Christan (or Muslim) for that matter are clearly insane and require sorting out.

You have done an excellent job of making the case for the idea outlined above in relation to recent history in the Middle East. However on this thread I have offered the alternative explanation that there are sound geo-political and economic reasons for the same events. In the final analysis it is impossible to refute such a theory and we can only make a judgment based on our own instincts. Personally I invoke the principle of Occam's Razor and conclude that the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct.

Obviously I am no fan of Bush or Blair, however I do not believe them to believe them to be motivated by a millennial Death Cult. Nor do I reflect of the creation of Israel with any great fondness. The only positive thing to have come out of the existence of that State is that a lot of none-indigenous people have been removed from the West. Obviously no kind of compensation for the chaos to which its existence has contributed to.

I can well understand how it is possible for people to subscribe to views like the variant you have described here. The world is in a state of utter confusion and chaos. The actions and attitude of our own political elites appears to be perverse and removed from reality and indeed are complete inexplicable in many cases. It is an appealing solution to an intractable problem to simply attribute the ills of the world to a malicious group of individuals. The Jews are the obvious candidates, a thousand years of ground work has gone into developing the a cannon of anti-semitic material and creating a deep suspicion of the religion and its adherents. And lets face it they don't do themselves any favors do they? Whats more, despite a history of "difficult" relations between them and their host nations they have still not Learned not to compromise or to show much respect for the latter.

However I believe that the perversity which afflicts the West can be explained by a "rogue" intellectual strand with its origins in Christianity. Gibbon's identified the morally corrosive effects of Christianity as being one of the major causes of the Roman Empire. Such concepts as "loving your enemy", a rejection of violence, the exultation of the weak etc leads to a weakening of the conviction of any given society. During the so-called Enlightenment the pacifistic elements of Christianity began to take precedence over other Christian traditions such as Crusading, intolerance of Hersey, Knightly militaristic mythology (all dangerous features of modern day Islam) etc. The horrific nature of the First World War along with its apparent total lack of any kind of justification completed the triumph of "pacifistic morality" (by which I mean a complete absence of any kind of ability to arrive at value judgments or any conviction in stated beliefs). It would take a couple of generations for the effects of this to filter through and gain total supremacy over the older belief systems, until the 1960's in fact. Since that point the West has spiraled out of control as a self destructive ideology has swept all before it. Incredibly this has been presented as some sort of liberation and a development of a "higher" moral order.

The latter theory is going to be a lot easier to sell than the "Jewish Question".
You have clearly done a lot of work on the "Jewish theory" and have put a great deal of effort into promoting its dissemination. However I ask to to put aside your preconceptions and ask yourself which is the more likely to be true? Clearly Jews have been a the forefront of "liberal" ideology, but thats a very different thing from being its origins.

NB: Menachem Begin was terrorist, indeed he orginated many terrorist tactics, he was an enemy of Britain and as such I would have no problem cursing him to the fullest of my ability.

Go join the IDF Summerstein.After all they are your friends.Put your money where your mouth is,after all we can all take it as a given that you haven't taken up arms or commited one single act of violence against any muslims in Britain.

An empire's greatest territorial extent doesn't necessarily coincide with its greatest strength or vitality. Realistically an empire based on a ruling class of a few hundred thousand elite Brits couldn't expand forever and in a context of mounting international rivalries fighting a war that shows you up as overconfident and crooked is counterproductive even if it's won.

In fact it's odd all round you should choose the Boer War as an example of how an empire should act. Though the Boers were 'pacified' they would quickly bounce back to form the dominant element in the Union that followed. And it was that war more than anything else before the Great War that tarnished the image of British invincibility and led people at home and abroad to question the nature of the empire.

I didn't chose the Boars as an example, I merely seized the chance to demonstrate that the horrors inflicted by the UK on that group permanently solved that problem. Another poster used the example in an attempt to portray the horrors of war which I fully accept. Incorporating former enemies into loyal subjects is THE most important survival trait of an Empire.

The Empire could not last forever of course. Mind having said that the fact it ever existed was somewhat against the odds. No Empire can survive for long and in the modern age its going to be a lot quicker than in former ages.

The inevitable instability and whatever the opposite of longevity is in Empires is a key argument in support of nationalism. Nations are more durable than Empires exactly because they are homogeneous while Empires by definition are not.

My advocation of violence on a grand scale towards Iran, Iraq and any other nation which would be incapable of effective defense is not in order to create another Empire. Rather merely a form economic negotiation and an effective manor of maintaining a defense of the West through fear (or deterrent as it is known in polite society). It is the exact strategy to which we owe our wealth and liberties (such as they are).

If I were to select an example of war as definitive solution to a problem there are hundreds to pick from. The Second World War being the most obvious. The Indian Munity another. The Prague Spring, The Napoleonic Wars, Edward I campaigns against the Welsh, The American War of Independence, any one of the five partitions of Poland, The War against Muslim Spain etc